1. I disagree since I specifically stated that the possibility exists that a designer included the selection parameters when setting up the Earth's evolution program. The selection criteria could be set by the environment if there were no designer.
2. This is the part I don't understand about your objection to the analogy. The changes to the form are random, to a degree but that matches to the fact that mutations to DNA are limited by the chemical structure of the molecule and availability of chemical compounds.
3. The selection criteria are extremely limited in the case of the program but they could be anything. This matches up to the natural selection within the evolution paradigm which determines the life and death of living organisms along with whether those organisms will have offspring.
4. I never stated that evolution HAD to be undesigned.
5. Mutations don't HAVE to be random. They just appear to be random.
[size=3][color=#000000][font=Times New Roman][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
6. Frankly, I don't understand your position on the subject. You seem to be saying that the protein correction mechanism in a cell keeps that cell from evolving. However, cells don't evolve any more than individual animals evolve. Evolution occurs in populations by traits being handed down to offspring. There is plenty of evidence of mutations that cause changes within populations of organisms.
7. My point concerning glycolysis being able to operate without the other two mechanisms was that the cell that utilizes aerobic respiration could have been an offspring from a cell that utilized anaerobic respiration alone. I don't see how that cannot be a possibility given that the other two mechanisms are not absolutely necessary for a cell to survive long enough to produce offspring.
8. If you are saying that aerobic cellular respiration is an irreducibly complex system and therefore could not have evolved, then I have to disagree.
9. If cells can live and produce offspring with glycolysis alone then how can aerobic cellular respiration be irreducibly complex?
10. The point of cellular respiration is to produce energy for cell functions. If glycolysis can do that without the other mechanisms then they are not necessary for cell function.
1. Then if you are admitting that there could be a designer then that is ok.
However as I said you cannot draw correlate between the "percieved undesigned" evolution and a designed computer simulation, for the reasons I have stated. The environment doesn't "set up" anything since it is not sentient... There is no causality of design behind environmental pressures. ie- a fish or its environment doesn't think or design a set of lungs for it to breathe air.
Additionally as an aside, a program runs to the parameters the program is set to do, hence using a program as a demonstration of evolution (or as evidence of it), really is silly since its being programed to do such, hence is not a definitive test of anything.
2. No you cannot compare a designed system with a "supposedly" undesigned one, as I have said they are totally different things and no amount ot mental gymnastics can change that fact.
3. If its limited, then it cannot be anything.... Your logic is self-refuting.
4. Ok, however realise that environmental pressures themselves are not a form of design
5. Go research "jumping genes" then consider that the system for this adaption technique itself would have needed to be designed. In otherwords "jumping genes" cannot be a form of "evolution" since the system by which this operates cannot have evolved itself from itself.
6. What you said has no relevance to what I have said. Yes evolution is believed to be from traits in populations however from where do those traits arise? From the individual and where do they arise in the individual, from the cell. Hence changes within the cell itself is paramount to evolution since everything stems from it. Attempting to look at it from a macro (simpler) view is what was done in Darwins day, you need to look at the details and that is looking at the cell. (As I said before, its very easy to claim evolution when you beleive cells to be simple blobs of jelly, however now that we know that cells are very complex evolution needs to be able to account for this complexity as well as have mechanisms that can work within these complex systems... This is what "Darwins Black Box" is about and I recommend it.
7. Care to give evidence? I have already demonstrated how the supporting functions are necessary and have shown you how glycolysis on its own WILL lead to the death of the cell. Either give evidence or admit that your point here is an unjustified opinion.
Keep in mind that no supporting functions would be allowed since as I have mentioned they would be considered part of the intergrated system. Perhaps find if there is an article which has a population of bacteria with all of its genes relating to metabolism knocked out with only glycolysis remaining, this would be the only form of test one can make for this.
8. Ok, you can.
9. As I have said the cell cannot live on glycolysis alone without other functions to support it.
You will need the citric acid cycle and the electric transport chain, OR another system that utilises the pyruvate product from glycolysis. Since the pyruvate will ferment into lactic acid and decrease the pH of the cell over time, leading to death. Lactic acid is what causes muscle cramps, now consider this... How long would a cell last if it was constantly under "cramp" conditions which increased over time (as its continuing glycolysis since it has no other choice).. Keep in mind that the lactic acid bacteria have mechanisms that transport the lactic acid out, (since it is a waste product)
Additionally the aerobic cell normally operates with the 24-26 ATP from the full cellular respiration, glycolysis only creates a net of 2 ATP... Now here is the kicker. In order for glycolysis to occur you need to have 2 ATP to start the process, 4 ATP will be created, leading to a net creation of 2, as stated before. Now tell me where did this initial ATP come from in order to "kick start" glycolysis?
Ok offspring production, as I have written there are other systems which are irreducibly complex... Cellular reproduction is yet another, and is much harder for the evolutionist to justify.
10. What other cellular functions? Did they "evolve" already?
Also consider what I have said about how each function is irreducibly complex in itself, hence glycolysis itself is irreducibly complex when you consider the enzymes required and the regulators for those enzymes etc.
Finally all this cannot have come about if DNA cannot give the instructions to the ribosome to create all these proteins for use... yet to do so energy is required... yet where is the energy for this if the proteins that create the energy, (not to mention the systems that create those proteins), cannot be created due to the lack of energy in the first place..